A Grave Mistake, RIP Google Reader

It’s been about two weeks since Google announced that its Google Reader service will be discontinued on July 1. This myopic approach to cost-cutting will ultimately do the company and
its bottom line a serious disservice. Here’s why:

As a public company, Google has the burden of meeting quarterly earnings expectations. Faced with the necessity of either cutting
expenses or ramping up revenues, it elected to take the former approach, reportedly pulling Google Reader from its lineup as a result of dwindling readership.

While the
product may not boast a vast audience, it does attract a very specialized and powerful consumer: Internet mavens. Journalist Martin Brinnkmann aptly described Google Reader’s users as
“tech-savvy Internet users who are part of the backbone of the Internet community.” These users, he noted, “read a lot of news items using RSS, and when they are done, they start to
take advantage of those news items and spread them around as well.”

Shutting down Google Reader has dampened the trust of the very users most capable of
disseminating content. While on the surface “spring cleaning” this product to reduce expenses may appear sensible, because the Google Reader audience is so influential, this move
represents a grave misstep that may ultimately make great waves.

Users of Google Reader are already decrying the new Google Keep as destined to shut down as well.
Charles Arthur of the Guardian forecasts a drop-dead date in 2017, based on the trajectory of similar Google products. Of note, more than 140,000 individuals have already petitioned to Google
to keep their beloved service online.

A much savvier approach to the earnings problem would have been to incorporate an “advertising feed” into Google
Reader, displaying highly targeted ads to Reader users based on their subscriptions. As a marketing strategist, I can attest to the need of clients like mine to reach this base of influential Internet
users.

Ads perfectly timed to appear when these users are consuming news (and therefore highly receptive) could be tremendously impactful. Such an approach could pay for
Reader’s operating costs in spades -- and solve Google’s revenues quandary without alienating one of its most important user groups. Moreover, some degree of investment in improving and
marketing the Reader over the years may have helped Google to grow the consumer base of this product.

I switched to http://feedafever.com/. I am really liking the concept of kindling and sparks. it isn't free and requires that you host it yourself.
Lifehacker has an article "Five Best Google Reader Replacements" that might help you find an alternative.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/03/five-best-google-reader-replacements/